Progressive vs Platonic Education

[Arising_uk]

Teaching the practice of conscious attention in order to have the experience of reality is considered indoctrination in the progressive world. ...

Nothing to do with this 'progressive' world(boy do I hate Yankisms) and everything to do with the fact that you have already assumed what should be given attention and in your case it is your metaphysical theology that you wish to indoctrinate upon others. I have taught 'conscious attention' when requested and in my case it is by using a metaphor that we have six logical levels of thinking or situation;
Vision(or Spirituality if you like)
Identity
Beliefs
Capability or Competency
Behaviour
Environment
And the job is to consciously attend to aligning them with each other. So one's vision should inform one's identity which should inform one's beliefs which should inform one's capabilities, etc and conversely ones environment should support one's behaviour which should support one's capabilities which should support one's beliefs, etc. Note that there is no metaphysical indoctrination involved but just allowing others to discover themselves and act according to themselves. Unlike your theist metaphysical theology that wishes to impose your view of things upon others, that's called indoctrination.

It really cannot be surprising when you consider that the impartial experience of the reality of the human condition must be intolerable since its acceptance require glorified imagination.

There is nothing impartial about what you propose.

[Arising_uk]

The hypocrisy of the human condition within you and what you've experience around you is considered normal. But it really is abnormal. Nature didn't intend for us to live in opposition to ourselves. But it is now considered normal. ...

This 'hypocrisy of the human condition' and that you think it 'abnormal' is just you and your fellow theists belief in a 'fallen creation' myth.

Plato in his Chariot analogy explains the fallen condition of our dark horse. It is an abnormal condition. But since we have come over time to consider it normal, society does what it can to perpetuate it. Since we are abnormal without a conception of what normality is, everything remains as it is including the cycles of war and peace.

Platonic education is a means for becoming normal. Progressive education is a means for sustaining dependence on imagination which keeps us abnormal.

And yet Plato and Socrates were both soldiers?

I look forward to your debate with fooloso4 as he appears to think you are talking nonsense about Plato and apparently he has read Plato and I agree with his assesment that you have not, just third-hand accounts and wiki goggles to support your theist metaphysical theology.

[Nick_A]

Teaching the practice of conscious attention in order to have the experience of reality is considered indoctrination in the progressive world. ...

Nothing to do with this 'progressive' world(boy do I hate Yankisms) and everything to do with the fact that you have already assumed what should be given attention and in your case it is your metaphysical theology that you wish to indoctrinate upon others. I have taught 'conscious attention' when requested and in my case it is by using a metaphor that we have six logical levels of thinking or situation;
Vision(or Spirituality if you like)
Identity
Beliefs
Capability or Competency
Behaviour
Environment
And the job is to consciously attend to aligning them with each other. So one's vision should inform one's identity which should inform one's beliefs which should inform one's capabilities, etc and conversely ones environment should support one's behaviour which should support one's capabilities which should support one's beliefs, etc. Note that there is no metaphysical indoctrination involved but just allowing others to discover themselves and act according to themselves. Unlike your theist metaphysical theology that wishes to impose your view of things upon others, that's called indoctrination.

It really cannot be surprising when you consider that the impartial experience of the reality of the human condition must be intolerable since its acceptance require glorified imagination.

There is nothing impartial about what you propose.

No, you are referring to directed attention. You have yet to become aware of the difference between directed attention and conscious attention. Becoming capable of directed attention is a necessary step towards conscious attention as well as indoctrination but they are not the same.

A cat has the ability for directed attention but not conscious attention

[fooloso4]

Nick:

As I've said many times that the idea of the conscious universe with the Good or the ONE described by Plotinus as its source makes the most sense to me since it makes the potential for universal meaning and purpose understandable.

The more I press you to discuss Plato the further away you move. Plotinus is not Plato. Plotinus had a mystical experience he called unification. You may believe that you can have the experience as well, but you have not. Unless you have that experience you know nothing about it, only what you imagine what it might be.

The value of Platonic education is in creating the environment in which the soul or essence of the student can inwardly turn towards the light.

You might imagine that this is what Plato is talking about but he never said anything about creating an environment or the essence of the student .

Part of the process is the experience of the relativity of thought; the process beginning with imagination and concluding with direct apprehension. If you deny this you are denying the purpose of Platonic education and support progressive education.

It was me who pointed out to you the role of imagination in response to the misleading translation of eikasia that you posted - “delusion or sheer conjecture”.

I’ll repost what I said:

I do not know where you got this from but it is not only a mistranslation, it one that leads to a fundamental misunderstanding. The term ‘eikasia’ means imagination. Imagination is of central importance for Plato. The divided line cannot be properly understood without images. The whole of the visible realm is the image of the intelligible realm. The mathematician makes use of images in order to understand the Form of the circle or square or line. The divided line itself is an image. The cave is an image. The Forms themselves are images of what must be if there is to be eternal, unchanging knowledge of what is.

Imagination can be delusion or conjecture though as when you imagine that you know anything about noesis. Even that there is such a thing is based on the imagination. One can avoid delusion by being aware that it is just something imagined.

The process does not end with noesis. If it did then Socrates would not have denied knowledge of the Forms. It is a goal that is never achieved in any of the dialogues. Most of the dialogues usually end in aporia. This is why it is important to read the whole of the dialogue. The purpose of a Platonic education is self-knowledge which means knowledge of ignorance and inquiry into how best to live knowing that you do not know.

Socrates and then Plato weren't there to promote indoctrination.

No, they weren’t, but you are with your talk of higher consciousness and the rest.

Their purpose was to raise questions that can lead to understanding through conscious contempltion . This is the purpose of philosophy.

This is part of it, but dialectic is not conscious contemplation. Contemplation is passive, dialectic is active. Dialogue is not just asking leading questions. It should be internalized as a form of thinking; critical self-examination in both the sense of examining your own opinions and an examination of your character, habits (including habits of mind), and what you hide from yourself behind your image of yourself. This is the purpose of philosophy.

In a previous post I quoted Jacob Needleman's explanation of conscious attention.

Needleman is not Plato. If you advocate a Needleman education or a Weil education or your own mashup, then say so. If you advocate a Platonic education then you should be able to discuss the dialogues themselves not what others say.

Why do you think the Apostles dropped everything to follow Jesus?

The Apostles and Jesus too? This may make sense based on your assumption of a perennial philosophy, but there is no evidence that Plato believed in a perennial philosophy, merely assertions by those who do.

No. the charioteer is our conscious potential.

That is your questionable interpretation, but maybe I shouldn’t give you credit because like almost everything you say you are just repeating what you have heard. Did you read the dialogue? That is a rhetorical question since it is evident that you have not.

I’d like to know if you re open to the following chart

No, I am not “open” to it. It is wrong. I already pointed out what is wrong with it.

Are you open to the idea that an individual can grow intellectually from reliance on baseless opinion into plausible opinion into seeking to verify theoretically by the lower reason of discursive thought and finally pass into the higher reason of noesis?

We have been through this already. Noesis is not “higher reason”. There is no higher and lower reason. Reason is dianoia. I suggest you look at the divided line in Bloom’s translation of the Republic. If you want to believe that you can attain noetic knowledge then pursue it. What you do not know is that you can or that anyone else can. This belief should not be the basis of an education your wrongly call Platonic.

Can the contradictions raised by discursive lead to conscious contemplation reconciling the contradictions revealed by impartial discursive thought from a higher more conscious perspective? If you deny this I do not understand your attraction to Platonic education.

No, I have already tried to explain why, and the reason you cannot understand my attraction to Plato is because you do not understand Plato. One major stumbling block is that you think you already know all kinds of things about Plato, with your talk of “a higher more conscious perspective” and so on. This is anachronistic. It is not something you will find in Plato except if you put it there. Noetic seeing is not a matter of seeing from a different perspective. It is not a matter of how one looks at it or regards it. It has nothing to do with consciousness either. It does not properly translate any term in Greek. Both terms "perspective' and 'consciousness' are loaded with so many connotations that one cannot help but be misled.

I’m done.

[Logik]

It does not matter what word you put in front of the word 'educate', if you adults just 'educated' your children in the Right way, or from the perspective of what the word 'educate' once meant, and that was to draw out, then all of these, so called, "issues" or "problems", which you, human beings, discuss in philosophy forums, would have already been solved, and thus ended, once, and for ALL.

If you adults just listened to your children properly and correctly, then ALL of you, human beings, would already be living in PEACE and HARMONY, now. If ALL of you adults just stopped ASSUMING and BELIEVING that you already KNEW what is right in life, and instead just drew out from within each and EVERY child their True Self, and thus their True potential, then ALL of YOU would already be living in that world that ALL of you so seek and desire, which is the exact same 'world' that ALL religions aspire to. Call that 'world' whatever you like, but, if you ALL just LISTENED to children, then you ALL would be living together as One, HERE with Me NOW.

If children had answers they how come they don’t solve those problems when they (eventually) get older?

Because they get distorted along the way and become disillusioned, by you, adult human beings. Children, literally, get adulterated.

You sound like a child. Put this quote on your calendar.

To revisit in 30 years or so.

[Age]

If children had answers they how come they don’t solve those problems when they (eventually) get older?

Because they get distorted along the way and become disillusioned, by you, adult human beings. Children, literally, get adulterated.

You sound like a child.

So what?

Does that, in and of itself, MEAN that we SHOULD NOT be LISTENED TO?

My VERY POINT WAS;
If you adults just LISTENED to your children properly and correctly, then ALL of you, human beings, would already be living in PEACE and HARMONY, now.

Now it appears that you are proposing the EXACT opposite thing, and that if one SOUNDS like A CHILD, then they SHOULD NOT be LISTENED TO at all.

Put this quote on your calendar.

To revisit in 30 years or so.

SOUNDS like a very interesting thing to do. Especially, from My perspective, and, from what I have been saying all along about HOW the readers WILL find this. Let us just say that they WILL be revisiting this MANY times over, in 30 years or so.

[Logik]

Because they get distorted along the way and become disillusioned, by you, adult human beings. Children, literally, get adulterated.

You sound like a child.

So what?

Does that, in and of itself, MEAN that we SHOULD NOT be LISTENED TO?

My VERY POINT WAS;
If you adults just LISTENED to your children properly and correctly, then ALL of you, human beings, would already be living in PEACE and HARMONY, now.

Now it appears that you are proposing the EXACT opposite thing, and that if one SOUNDS like A CHILD, then they SHOULD NOT be LISTENED TO at all.

Put this quote on your calendar.

To revisit in 30 years or so.

SOUNDS like a very interesting thing to do. Especially, from My perspective, and, from what I have been saying all along about HOW the readers WILL find this. Let us just say that they WILL be revisiting this MANY times over, in 30 years or so.

actnow.jpg (39.05 KiB) Viewed 2809 times

[Age]

You sound like a child.

So what?

Does that, in and of itself, MEAN that we SHOULD NOT be LISTENED TO?

My VERY POINT WAS;
If you adults just LISTENED to your children properly and correctly, then ALL of you, human beings, would already be living in PEACE and HARMONY, now.

Now it appears that you are proposing the EXACT opposite thing, and that if one SOUNDS like A CHILD, then they SHOULD NOT be LISTENED TO at all.

Put this quote on your calendar.

To revisit in 30 years or so.

SOUNDS like a very interesting thing to do. Especially, from My perspective, and, from what I have been saying all along about HOW the readers WILL find this. Let us just say that they WILL be revisiting this MANY times over, in 30 years or so.

actnow.jpg

You are just like that one called 'timeseeker" and "others" in that you can be so easily manipulated and led to BELIEVE some thing that is NOT even remotely true.

[Logik]

You are just like that one called 'timeseeker" and "others" in that you can be so easily manipulated and led to BELIEVE some thing that is NOT even remotely true.

Oh. I don't know about that. I see much of myself in you when I was your age.

I also thought I had it all figured out. I was mistaken.

You may be mistaken too.

[Walker]

SOUNDS like a very interesting thing to do. Especially, from My perspective, and, from what I have been saying all along about HOW the readers WILL find this. Let us just say that they WILL be revisiting this MANY times over, in 30 years or so.

Hello. What do you make of this? (underlining but not italics added)

“In the life of Gautama Buddha we notice him constantly saying that he is the twenty-fifth Buddha. The twenty-four before him are unknown to history, although the Buddha known to history must have built upon foundations laid by them. The highest men are calm, silent and unknown. The are the men who really know the power of thought; they are sure that even if they go into a cave and close the door and simply think five true thoughts and then pass away, these five thoughts of theirs will live throughout eternity. Indeed such thoughts of theirs will penetrate through the mountains, cross the oceans and travel through the world. They will enter deep into human hearts and brains and raise up men and women who will give them practical expression in the workings of human life … The Buddhas and the Christs will go from place to place preaching these truths … These Sattvika men are too near the Lord to be active and to fight, to be working, struggling, preaching and doing good, as they say, here on earth to humanity …”

- Swami Vivekananda

[henry quirk]

You sound like a child.


So what? Does that, in and of itself, MEAN that we SHOULD NOT be LISTENED TO?


Yes, that's exactly what it means.

The one who doesn't know (like you) ought to be quiet, listen, and learn.

That's sumthin' I tell the 12 year old daily.

'Talk less, listen more' is what I tell him.

#

My VERY POINT WAS; If you adults just LISTENED to your children properly and correctly, then ALL of you, human beings, would already be living in PEACE and HARMONY, now.


How? Here's your chance, guy. Dazzle us with 'wisdom'. We're listening.

[Nick_A]

Nick:

As I've said many times that the idea of the conscious universe with the Good or the ONE described by Plotinus as its source makes the most sense to me since it makes the potential for universal meaning and purpose understandable.

The more I press you to discuss Plato the further away you move. Plotinus is not Plato. Plotinus had a mystical experience he called unification. You may believe that you can have the experience as well, but you have not. Unless you have that experience you know nothing about it, only what you imagine what it might be.

You keep forgetting that the purpose of Platonic education is to remember what has been forgotten rather than indoctrination. Remembrance is a process made possible by opening the mind. The indoctrination of progressive education is made possible by closing the mind. Plato is opening us to perennial truths. He is not the only one. Plotinus did as well. I am invited to verify these truths over time.

Recently I posted the seventh letter and about how the light of understanding is passed on. What took place between Simone Weil and Gustav Thibon is a good example:

I had the impression of being in the presence of an absolutely transparent soul which was ready to be reabsorbed into original light. I can still hear Simone Weil’s voice in the deserted streets of Marseilles as she took me back to my hotel in the early hours of the morning; she was speaking of the Gospel; her mouth uttered thoughts as a tree gives its fruit, her words did not express reality, they poured it into me in its naked totality; I felt myself to be transported beyond space and time and literally fed with light.
Gustav Thibon

The atheists will scream prove it. You will deny. I try to keep an open mind. Is it true? It certainly is plausible. Rather than close my mind by denial I remain open to the unification you just wrote of. Progressive education through the misguided belief in its superiority projects this attitude of denial. True Platonic education invites the open mind as to the reality of human being.

The value of Platonic education is in creating the environment in which the soul or essence of the student can inwardly turn towards the light.

You might imagine that this is what Plato is talking about but he never said anything about creating an environment or the essence of the student .

What inwardly turns towards the light if not the essence or the soul of Man? Have you heard of Plato's Academy?

Part of the process is the experience of the relativity of thought; the process beginning with imagination and concluding with direct apprehension. If you deny this you are denying the purpose of Platonic education and support progressive education.

It was me who pointed out to you the role of imagination in response to the misleading translation of eikasia that you posted - “delusion or sheer conjecture”.

I’ll repost what I said:

I do not know where you got this from but it is not only a mistranslation, it one that leads to a fundamental misunderstanding. The term ‘eikasia’ means imagination. Imagination is of central importance for Plato. The divided line cannot be properly understood without images. The whole of the visible realm is the image of the intelligible realm. The mathematician makes use of images in order to understand the Form of the circle or square or line. The divided line itself is an image. The cave is an image. The Forms themselves are images of what must be if there is to be eternal, unchanging knowledge of what is.

Imagination can be delusion or conjecture though as when you imagine that you know anything about noesis. Even that there is such a thing is based on the imagination. One can avoid delusion by being aware that it is just something imagined.

Eikasia is the lowest form of consciousness. it is the source of suffering as believed in Buddhism. It is what has to be consciously outgrown rather than celebrated during the evolution of human consciousness

The process does not end with noesis. If it did then Socrates would not have denied knowledge of the Forms. It is a goal that is never achieved in any of the dialogues. Most of the dialogues usually end in aporia. This is why it is important to read the whole of the dialogue. The purpose of a Platonic education is self-knowledge which means knowledge of ignorance and inquiry into how best to live knowing that you do not know.

Of course it doesn't end with noesis. The experience of noesis is the beginning of higher consciousness. Self knowledge reveals aporia - our inner contradictions. the seeker of truth through conscious experience strives to reconcile our dual nature rather than deny it.

Socrates and then Plato weren't there to promote indoctrination.

No, they weren’t, but you are with your talk of higher consciousness and the rest.

Their purpose was to raise questions that can lead to understanding through conscious contemplation . This is the purpose of philosophy.

This is part of it, but dialectic is not conscious contemplation. Contemplation is passive, dialectic is active. Dialogue is not just asking leading questions. It should be internalized as a form of thinking; critical self-examination in both the sense of examining your own opinions and an examination of your character, habits (including habits of mind), and what you hide from yourself behind your image of yourself. This is the purpose of philosophy.

Do you really believe a person asleep in Plato's cave attached to the shadows on the wall can be capable of any real self knowledge by sitting around and BSing? No, it requires the quality of conscious attention you deny.

In a previous post I quoted Jacob Needleman's explanation of conscious attention.

Needleman is not Plato. If you advocate a Needleman education or a Weil education or your own mashup, then say so. If you advocate a Platonic education then you should be able to discuss the dialogues themselves not what others say.

No, if you want to speak of self knowledge in relation to a Platonic education, you have to know what conscious attention is. Otherwise if is just BS

Why do you think the Apostles dropped everything to follow Jesus?

The Apostles and Jesus too? This may make sense based on your assumption of a perennial philosophy, but there is no evidence that Plato believed in a perennial philosophy, merely assertions by those who do.

Plato's cave is an analogy expressing a perennial truth of the human condition. Buddhism expresses the same truth with the parable of the Burning House. In both cases the noble lie is a necessary step towards awakening to the human condition and what it denies human being.

No. the charioteer is our conscious potential.

That is your questionable interpretation, but maybe I shouldn’t give you credit because like almost everything you say you are just repeating what you have heard. Did you read the dialogue? That is a rhetorical question since it is evident that you have not.

You may have read it but being closed to levels of reality, didn't understand it.

I’d like to know if you re open to the following chart

No, I am not “open” to it. It is wrong. I already pointed out what is wrong with it.

The master has spoken! This is what happens in secular progressive universities. The idiots in charge express the same attitude and the kids are stuck with it.

Are you open to the idea that an individual can grow intellectually from reliance on baseless opinion into plausible opinion into seeking to verify theoretically by the lower reason of discursive thought and finally pass into the higher reason of noesis?

We have been through this already. Noesis is not “higher reason”. There is no higher and lower reason. Reason is dianoia. I suggest you look at the divided line in Bloom’s translation of the Republic. If you want to believe that you can attain noetic knowledge then pursue it. What you do not know is that you can or that anyone else can. This belief should not be the basis of an education your wrongly call Platonic.

You may deny yourself the experience of intuition in order to consciously reconcile our dual nature but that doesn't mean others must. Some are willing to admit the relationship between the intelligible revealed through intuition and the visible documented as facts. If you believe Plato was ignorant of this you don't understand Plato.

“Intuition and concepts constitute… the elements of all our knowledge, so that neither concepts without an intuition in some way corresponding to them, nor intuition without concepts, can yield knowledge.” Immanuel Kant

Can the contradictions raised by discursive lead to conscious contemplation reconciling the contradictions revealed by impartial discursive thought from a higher more conscious perspective? If you deny this I do not understand your attraction to Platonic education.

No, I have already tried to explain why, and the reason you cannot understand my attraction to Plato is because you do not understand Plato. One major stumbling block is that you think you already know all kinds of things about Plato, with your talk of “a higher more conscious perspective” and so on. This is anachronistic. It is not something you will find in Plato except if you put it there. Noetic seeing is not a matter of seeing from a different perspective. It is not a matter of how one looks at it or regards it. It has nothing to do with consciousness either. It does not properly translate any term in Greek. Both terms "perspective' and 'consciousness' are loaded with so many connotations that one cannot help but be misled.

I’m done.

Those like F4 will always remain ignorant of the relationship between truth and meaning philosophy is drawn to. They deny by their obsession with fragmentation the context necessary to reveal meaning.

Take the note fa on a musical octave for example; what does it mean? By itself it has no meaning. Its meaning is derived by its relationship to the octave it is a part of. Progressive education seeks to apply meaning to fragments without knowledge of the wholeness they are part of. Plato's comparison of knowledge to opinions is an expression of this awareness. It is the spiritual awareness spirit killers seek to destroy in the young in favor of societal indoctrination. It's rough being a kid who has begun to smell the coffee.

[Arising_uk]

And yet you only have a third-hand fragmentary account of what Plato said. You can't even be bothered to read him for yourself so what example are you to the youth? Because you were raised a theist and then a born-again one you demonstrate a perfect example of selective reading and confirmation bias in action. It has been pointed-out to you by someone who apparently has read Plato in great depth that what you say is not in Plato nor that what you think Platonic education is is actually the case but rather than engaging with him you divert onto another Greek philosopher or just repeat your claims based upon your obvious Christian based theosophy. All in all you are a very good example of bad philosophy.

Personally I surprise myself by agreeing with Spengler's view of History in that it is a serious error to think that we have the same understanding of things that the ancient cultures did and all you are doing is viewing them through your own lens to support your already indoctrinated viewpoint. But I know you won't understand any of this as like all good born agains you are here to proselytise not philosophise.

[fooloso4]

Arising_uk:

And yet you only have a third-hand fragmentary account of what Plato said.

I am glad that this is evident to others even though he will never acknowledge it.

I did not bother getting into it, but his misunderstanding of “progressive education” is just as problematic. At least with Plato we have an identifiable body of work, but when it comes to “progressive education” it is simply everything that does not agree with his imagined transcendent reality.

... it is a serious error to think that we have the same understanding of things that the ancient cultures did …

This is a central problem of hermeneutics, with regard to both the interpretation of texts and history. There is much that can be done to narrow the gap but it can never be closed.

… and all you are doing is viewing them through your own lens to support your already indoctrinated viewpoint.

This is in general both a historical and ahistorical problem. Whether one is attempting to understand the work of someone from another time and place or a contemporary philosopher writing in one's own language, one’s own assumptions can get in the way. The problem is compounded when one believes that he is in possession of some form of timeless truth. In the past, on this forum, I have pointed out Nick’s failure to understand even his beloved Simone Weil. He cannot see whatever does not fit his own beliefs.

[Nick_A]

And yet you only have a third-hand fragmentary account of what Plato said. You can't even be bothered to read him for yourself so what example are you to the youth? Because you were raised a theist and then a born-again one you demonstrate a perfect example of selective reading and confirmation bias in action. It has been pointed-out to you by someone who apparently has read Plato in great depth that what you say is not in Plato nor that what you think Platonic education is is actually the case but rather than engaging with him you divert onto another Greek philosopher or just repeat your claims based upon your obvious Cristian based theosophy. Alla in all you are a very good example of bad philosophy.

Personally I surprise myself by agreeing with Spengler's view of History in that it is a serious error to think that we have the same understanding of things that the ancient cultures did and all you are doing is viewing them through your own lens to support your already indoctrinated viewpoint. But I know you won't understand any of this as like all good born again you are here to proselytise not philosophise.

Why do you believe F4 as secularist can appreciate the span of Plato's ideas? How do you know I didn't read Plato in college? My advantage is that learning how closely the ideas relate to esoteric Christianity, ideas can live for me in a way impossible for secularism

For example do you have any idea of what is meant in the explanation of creation in Plato's Timaeus? Timaeus is speaking

....................First then, in my judgment, we must make a distinction and ask, What is that which always is and has no becoming; and what is that which is always becoming and never is? That which is apprehended by intelligence and reason is always in the same state; but that which is conceived by opinion with the help of sensation and without reason, is always in a process of becoming and perishing and never really is. Now everything that becomes or is created must of necessity be created by some cause, for without a cause nothing can be created. The work of the creator, whenever he looks to the unchangeable and fashions the form and nature of his work after an unchangeable pattern, must necessarily be made fair and perfect; but when he looks to the created only, and uses a created pattern, it is not fair or perfect. Was the heaven then or the world, whether called by this or by any other more appropriate name-assuming the name, I am asking a question which has to be asked at the beginning of an enquiry about anything-was the world, I say, always in existence and without beginning? or created, and had it a beginning?........................................

Unfortuntely you and others define proselytizing as discussing that which your mind is closed to. You prefer to ridicule the great questions. This is how it is in secular progressive education which requires closing the mind of anyone beginning to awaken. I support opening the mind to the quality of consciousness it is capable of.